LONDON (Reuters) – God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.

In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity.

Since 1974, the scientist has worked on marrying the two cornerstones of modern physics -- Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which concerns gravity and large-scale phenomena, and quantum theory, which covers subatomic particles...

I find it so fascinating that so many modern scientists seem preoccupied with the notion of "science vs faith." Science does not REQUIRE this false dichotomy. I greatly admire Einstein, for example, and he had no such hang-up; pretty cool guy, really.

You don't have to be an atheist to "have" science and physics. Einstein managed pretty well for himself.

I am a Christian and am a physical chemist; I know a LOT of scientists that balance both. I certainly have not had the career Hawking has had, but I like to think that I was pretty good in my field in my day; yet my understanding of quantum mechanics, statistical thermodynamics and chemical reaction dynamics in no way shape or form stops me from professing my faith.

Even an atheist is taking something on faith...so I don't understand the assumption of the transcendental truth of science vs faith. In other words, I reject the premise that I have to choose one OR the other to be true to either.

I also find it totally fascinating that so many scientists claim theology or faith is not science then try to "use science" to "prove" the absence of God.

I was hearing alot about this on the radio and it seems like Hawking often gets misquoted slightly. One of his contemporaries was trying to explain in my interview that he didn't necessarily say God doesn't exist, since the start of the universe still cannot be adequately explained by science. The theory he mentioned was that he thinks that the idea of a God you could interact with and talk to was probably false [in his opinion] not that there wasn't 'something else' out there.

Still, the guy in the interview could have misquoted him as well. And as Indiana said, an educated guess is still a guess, no matter what you believe.

Just curious, because I have NEVER heard this, and as I dig into it a bit right now, don't see the claim with any specific verifiable quotation of him saying exactly "I am an atheist" or "I don't believe in ANYTHING I cannot see" or something similar. In fact, he said quite the opposite.

I offer:

Quote

He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I'm NOT an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

This is not the first time a religious or atheist camp has tried to pigeonhole Einstein; surely any serious critic would agree that Einstein’s religious beliefs are far more subtle than this. Clearly, Einstein took serious issues with organized religion but there is still a very strong sense of religiosity throughout his letters. In common with atheist dogma, he held a conviction for rational thought, but he also realised the silliness of tackling religious questions with a scientific ontology: namely, trying to fathom whether there IS; ISN’T; or ‘PROBABLY’ isn’t a God.

For Einstein there was no need for rational thought and religious sentiment to be in conflict.

Indeed, his famous quote “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” seems to perfectly capture his dualistic approach to scientific inquiry.

Anyway, I’ll spare you a clumsy unravelling of more Einstein quotes but if you’re interested there’s a more serious look at this topic here.

Einstein, if I recall correctly, specifies what is closest to his personal beliefs was Spinoza's god. In Einstein's case, he called the mysteries and wonder of the universe "god", but he clearly didn't believe in a personal god. I'd agree deist is probably the closest term, but most deists appear to think of god in much more personal terms than Einstein.

Einstein, if I recall correctly, specifies what is closest to his personal beliefs was Spinoza's god. In Einstein's case, he called the mysteries and wonder of the universe "god", but he clearly didn't believe in a personal god. I'd agree deist is probably the closest term, but most deists appear to think of god in much more personal terms than Einstein.

All of which confirms my original statement(s): Einstein did NOT believe 'his science' was at-odds with his faith.

I had construed from my humble reading that EINSTEIN had poked his head thru an illusion of tar paper, and, looking around, where no one had looked before, realized that there could not be an explanation... but God.